McFadden declines to say he thinks sacking Robbins was fair
In an interview with Times Radio, Pat McFadden repeatedly declined to say that he thought the sacking of Olly Robbins was fair.
When Kate McCann requested this, McFadden replied:
I do know Olly Robbins. And as I mentioned, I believe very extremely of him. I believe if the prime minister has made the judgment that he’s not bought confidence within the head of the Foreign Office, then it’s troublesome to proceed.
That isn’t to say that Olly Robbins isn’t a particularly distinguished civil servant. I believe what this actually got here down to was a disagreement on judgment.
Olly Robbins made the judgment that he didn’t have to share this data with the prime minister. The prime minister takes a really completely different view. He thought that data must be shared. And it’s on the idea of that disagreement that the prime minister took his resolution.
When pressed once more, McFadden mentioned: “It’s the prime minister’s judgment.” When McCann put it to him that he was not saying if he thought the sacking was fair, McFadden replied: “Of course as a cabinet member, I support the prime minister’s decisions.”
McFadden additionally mentioned that till yesterday he didn’t know that No 10 had thought of appointing Matthew Doyle, the PM’s communications secretary on the time, to an ambassadorial job. “I don’t think that would have been the right thing to do,” he mentioned.
McFadden’s interview will likely be seen as recent proof that cupboard ministers who’ve been loyal to Keir Starmer, and who could be regarded as members of his interior circle (in up to now as he has one), are beginning to distance themselves from the PM a bit. Yesterday Ed Miliband, the vitality secretary, was very explicit about how he thought appointing Mandelson as an envoy was fallacious, and Yvette Cooper, the international secretary, strongly condemned the Doyle job proposal (which got here to nothing). Today the Daily Mail highlights the Miliband and Cooper feedback in its splash.
Key occasions
Reeves says sacking Robbins was proper resolution
Heather Stewart
Heather Stewart is the Guardian’s economics editor.
While Pat McFadden this morning declined to say that sacking Olly Robbins was fair (see 9.38am), Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has been extra supportive. She could also be one in every of Keir Starmer’s loyal allies left in cupboard (partially as a result of their fortunes are tied – a brand new PM would nearly definitely ship a brand new particular person to head the Treasury). This is what she mentioned on the Good Growth Foundation occasion final nigth when requested if sacking Robbins was the suitable resolution.
Yes, I believe it was. It was a troublesome resolution as properly, and you’ve got to make judgments on this stuff.
But what we heard from Olly Robbins confirmed what the prime minister set out [on Monday], which was that there have been numerous alternatives to inform the prime minister, and the international secretary, and the cupboard secretary, that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting course of, and on none of these events – both forward of Peter Mandelson taking the position, or when Peter Mandelson was sacked, or when the international secretary was requested by the international affairs choose committee in regards to the vetting course of – on none of these events was that data supplied.
SNP defends changing Swinney with Mairi McAllan on panel to cease leaders’ debates being male dominated
Libby Brooks
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
When I first arrived again in Scotland to report on the 2014 independence referendum, the transfer towards ‘manels’ – all male political panels – was in full swing, with the marketing campaign group Women for Independence specifically fast to name out unrepresentative debate.
A number of years later and a big shift had occurred. Remember the times when Holyrood events have been led by girls? Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale? Now quick ahead to the 2026 marketing campaign and the manel is again with a vengeance with solely Gillian Mackay, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, breaking apart the wall of fits (on the events when she is representing her get together, not her co-leader Ross Greer).
So it’s value noting that yesterday, when the SNP introduced that their consultant for a particular election Question Time with Thursday could be housing secretary Mairi McAllan, not chief John Swinney, some opposition voices have been gradual to decide up the purpose. The Tories dismissed Swinney as “cowardly” and the Lib Dems accused him of “dodging scrutiny like … Boris Johnson”.
As the girl in query – who many tip as a future FM – defined:
There have been many male-dominated debate panels throughout this marketing campaign up to now. The first minister and the SNP strongly imagine that girls’s voices must be heard within the marketing campaign and so I will likely be happy to participate on this week’s Question Time
The first minister is trying ahead to the subsequent televised leaders debate however is decided that girls will likely be heard and is greater than assured within the expertise of senior members of his staff to spotlight the SNP’s report and put ahead our constructive, bold plans for Scotland.
McFadden strongly backs ‘robust’ Shabana Mahmood over her swearing at pro-migration protesters
Pat McFadden was not precisely gung-ho in his assist for Keir Starmer this morning, however he was enthusiastic when requested about Shabana Mahmood, the house secretary. On LBC Nick Ferrari, the presenter, requested if he was joyful about Mahmood telling pro-migration protesters who heckled her about her insurance policies at an occasion on Monday evening to “fuck right off”.
It appeared he was. McFadden replied:
Shabana is a sturdy girl, and she or he all the time has my full assist. I believe she’s an unlimited asset to the federal government.
Asked if swearing was applicable, McFadden mentioned: “I think Shabana Mahmood is great.” He additionally identified that Ferrari didn’t know what the environment was within the theatre when the incident occurred.
Asked if he was about pleased with Mahmood’s immigration insurance policies, McFadden replied:
I believe her insurance policies are proper. I believe she’s an unlimited asset to the federal government, and she or he’s a strong girl. We want robust folks in politics, and she or he’s robust.
In his interview with Sky News, whereas not saying he totally supported the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US, Pat McFadden did say that he may “see the rationale” for it.
Asked if he was anxious when he heard in regards to the appointment, he replied:
No, as a result of I may see the rationale for it … This was an uncommon appointment, a political appointment, the truth is they occur from time to time, not fairly often.
But I may see the rationale for this appointment since you have been coping with a really new sort of US administration, commerce was going to be on the coronary heart of our relationship with this administration.
So, having a political appointment and somebody with commerce expertise, I may see why such an appointment was made.
And to be sincere, so may many different folks on the time of the announcement. This was not greeted with horror.
McFadden declines to say he thinks sacking Robbins was fair
In an interview with Times Radio, Pat McFadden repeatedly declined to say that he thought the sacking of Olly Robbins was fair.
When Kate McCann requested this, McFadden replied:
I do know Olly Robbins. And as I mentioned, I believe very extremely of him. I believe if the prime minister has made the judgment that he’s not bought confidence within the head of the Foreign Office, then it’s troublesome to proceed.
That isn’t to say that Olly Robbins isn’t a particularly distinguished civil servant. I believe what this actually got here down to was a disagreement on judgment.
Olly Robbins made the judgment that he didn’t have to share this data with the prime minister. The prime minister takes a really completely different view. He thought that data must be shared. And it’s on the idea of that disagreement that the prime minister took his resolution.
When pressed once more, McFadden mentioned: “It’s the prime minister’s judgment.” When McCann put it to him that he was not saying if he thought the sacking was fair, McFadden replied: “Of course as a cabinet member, I support the prime minister’s decisions.”
McFadden additionally mentioned that till yesterday he didn’t know that No 10 had thought of appointing Matthew Doyle, the PM’s communications secretary on the time, to an ambassadorial job. “I don’t think that would have been the right thing to do,” he mentioned.
McFadden’s interview will likely be seen as recent proof that cupboard ministers who’ve been loyal to Keir Starmer, and who could be regarded as members of his interior circle (in up to now as he has one), are beginning to distance themselves from the PM a bit. Yesterday Ed Miliband, the vitality secretary, was very explicit about how he thought appointing Mandelson as an envoy was fallacious, and Yvette Cooper, the international secretary, strongly condemned the Doyle job proposal (which got here to nothing). Today the Daily Mail highlights the Miliband and Cooper feedback in its splash.
Pat McFadden urges Labour MPs to let Starmer ‘do job he was elected to do’
Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, is among the ministers despatched out by No 10 to defend Keir Starmer on the airwaves in conditions that are significantly troublesome, and at this time he was on the morning interview circuit.
In an interview with Sky News, McFadden didn’t settle for that the temper amongst Labour MPs was mutinous. Asked if he had a message for colleagues who do need to see Starmer changed, he replied:
My message to them is the prime minister has acknowledged this appointment was a mistake, regardless of the rationale was for it. And to be a first-rate minister is to be a decision-making machine. And they gained’t all be proper.
But that doesn’t imply you ditch the chief. It doesn’t imply you alter prime minister. I believe we’ve had an excessive amount of of that within the UK in recent times.
I believe we want a interval of retaining a first-rate minister for a time frame to let him do the job he was elected to do. This is a troublesome story, it’s a troublesome week.
Ex-Foreign Office chief Simon McDonald joins ex cupboard secretary Mark Sedwill in saying Robbins ought to get job again
Simon McDonald, who has Olly Robbins’ predecessor however one as everlasting secretary on the Foreign Office, has joined Mark Sedwill (see 8.35am) and the others saying Robbins ought to get his job again.
In an article for the Guardian, McDonald says:
Robbins did his job, conscious of the strain from throughout Downing Street however not buckling to it. And but misunderstanding about what that job required led the prime minister to rush to a fallacious judgment. I can’t imagine that, had he waited till after the international affairs choose committee session, the PM would have sacked Robbins.
The world is an unsure place. The Foreign Office and its skilled head are coping with simultaneous crises in Ukraine, the Middle East and the transatlantic relationship. Britain can’t afford a spot on the prime, nor can it afford to lose the providers of a first-class civil servant whose diligence and thoughtfulness have been on full show yesterday in Portcullis House. There is one rapid conclusion for my part: the federal government ought to reinstate Robbins as everlasting undersecretary.
And right here is McDonald’s argument in full.
Starmer to face MPs for first time since Olly Robbins’ Mandelson proof
Good morning. Keir Starmer faces PMQs at this time with the Peter Mandelson vetting row nonetheless dominating the Westminster agenda and – within the view of most observers aware of the views of Labour MPs – the wagons of doom circling in, ever nearer, on the Starmer premiership. In an excellent world, the destiny of prime ministers could be determined by the massive points, not arcane scandals and character spats. But we don’t live within the splendid world; we live in twenty first century Britain, the place everybody has social media on their telephone. And even when you don’t care a lot about Mandelson, there’s a hyperlink between how Starmer has dealt with this and wider authorities failures.
Starmer’s place bought worse yesterday as Olly Robbins, the particular person he sacked as Foreign Office everlasting secretary, gave proof to MPs. Here is our in a single day story about it by Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey.
Pippa and Kiran report: “Labour MPs have been appalled by the recurring reminder that Starmer personally decided to appoint someone with Mandelson’s reputation to the UK’s most sensitive diplomatic post, and warned that his leadership is now on borrowed time.”
Last week Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative chief, was making an attempt to nail Starmer with the cost that he lied to parliament. She failed, as a result of all of the proof suggests he didn’t. In his assertion to MPs on Monday, Starmer turned this right into a course of debate. But that focuses consideration on whether or not he was proper to sack Robbins and many individuals watching the previous civil servant yesterday took the view that Robbins ought to have stored his job.
One of these folks is Mark Sedwill, who was cupboard secretary from 2018 to 2020. In a letter within the Times, he says listening to confirmed that “the calm integrity and intelligence which have characterised [Robbins’] distinguished career of public service”. Sedwill mentioned Robbins ought to get his job again.
The prime minister appointed Peter Mandelson towards official recommendation, introduced that appointment with out safety vetting having been accomplished and claims that he would have modified his thoughts had he been advised that the vetting course of had raised the issues about Mandelson’s earlier conduct of which he was already properly conscious.
As Robbins defined yesterday, the query for him was not whether or not to inform the prime minister what he already knew, however whether or not these points might be mitigated sufficient to enable Mandelson entry to the key intelligence crucial to do his job. He made the skilled judgment that they may. Unwisely as it turned out, he shouldered his duties slightly than shunting them.
The prime minister ought to retract his accusations towards Olly Robbins and reinstate him to the job the nation wants him to do of getting the diplomatic service into form for the second quarter of the twenty first century.
This is certain to function once more at PMQs. It will likely be a type of day when what is going to matter most will most likely not be what will get mentioned, however the expressions on the faces of Labour MPs.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
2.15pm: Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, offers proof to the joint committee on human rights in regards to the human rights implications of the Troubles invoice.
Afternoon: MPs debate Lords amendments to the kids’s wellbeing and colleges invoice. As Sally Weale reports, the federal government is accepting a Tory proposal for a ban on smartphones in colleges to be made statutory. But it isn’t accepting the modification from Tory friends implementing a social media ban for under-16s.
5pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK chief, speaks at a rally in Barnsley.
If you need to contact me, please publish a message beneath the road when feedback are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t learn all of the messages BTL, however when you put “Andrew” in a message geared toward me, I’m extra probably to see it as a result of I seek for posts containing that phrase.
If you need to flag one thing up urgently, it’s best to use social media. You can attain me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, however particular person Guardian journalists are there, I nonetheless have my account, and when you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I’ll see it and reply if crucial.
I discover it very useful when readers level out errors, even minor typos. No error is just too small to appropriate. And I discover your questions very attention-grabbing too. I can’t promise to reply to all of them, however I’ll attempt to reply to as many as I can, both BTL or generally within the weblog.
